Before I get into today's subject, I would like to extend an apology to my readers for my unusually long absence. I know I do not post that frequently to begin with, and I knew it had been a great deal of time since I last posted here, but the surprise to me has been that my last posting was about a month-and-a-half ago. There have been a number of things that have kept me occupied, mostly work on my house and dealing with a poison something-or-other rash which is finally beginning to subside. I am sorry for the delay.
Several weeks ago, I went to see a film called Disconnect. The film deals with how technology has pervaded our lives to the point of altering, running, and even ruining our lives. (For me, personally, I also saw an unspoken, although not fully fleshed-out, commentary on how we have willfully let this happen.) The film explores several story lines at once (similar to 'Crash', 'Sin City', and 'Pulp Fiction'), in which we see families, a reporter, and a young student dealing with the ready availability of technology and suffering the consequences of that same technology.
One family has only that they are blood-related and live under the same roof as its connections. Another family has a father as the lone parent of a son who, behind his back, is engaging in cyberbullying. His cyberbullying is that of the son of the first family. The reporter, in the sole interest of advancing her career, pursues a story with someone in a private sex chat room, and becoming involved with her subject.
The common denominator is that these characters' connections are shallow, hurtful, false, debasing, destructive, and unfulfilling.
This has crossed my mind before, but the film got me thinking again about society in general and our own socio-self-perception, if you will, in the light of technology as a means of connection. Before all of this particular kind of technological advancement took place, I remember our means of connecting with one another were face-to-face conversations, letters and cards, and phone calls. Prior to the telephone, the list would remain at three, with telegraphs in place of telephones. Prior to telegraphs, the list would be down to two, with face-to-face conversations and letters. Prior to mail service within a town or between neighboring towns and the appearance of the Pony Express, the list would be down to one...face-to-face.
Don't get me wrong, my point here is not to say all technology is horrible and we need to abandon all of it. To the contrary, the fact that I can look up information about a country half way around the world from me or that someone half a world away from me can read this is awesome, truly a feat of wonder. My point is many of us have used this same technology as a sorry substitute of connection, a kind of relational aspartame.
While there are many good uses of this technology, I wonder how many families only have their bloodline and residence as what connects them...how many have used it for their advantage at the expense of others...how many have used it to exploit or take advantage of someone else, etc. What about those who are not from broken families or who don't necessarily have fractured relationships? They, too, can fall into the trap, more like the illusion, of connection where there isn't really one.
It may seem as though I am mincing words here when talking about "connected" and "linked", especially since both words have the other as one of its synonyms. Stay with me on this and I will try and make my distinction as clearly as possible.
For the purpose of this exposition, the word "connected" refers to interpersonal connections between and among individuals. Examples of this would be two friends or a group of friends, a family and all of its relatives, co-workers, and groups. The words "related" and "relational" would be at the top of the list of synonyms here. The word "linked" refers to the manner in which individuals or groups are joined together. Examples here would be the Internet, social media, chat rooms, E-mail, and blogs. Synonyms here would include "technology" or any of the words that I used as examples.
I have used many of the technologies mentioned here, but they have not become my only or primary means of staying connected with friends, save for those who live a great distance away. For many of us, the fact that we can link with someone has replaced the connection with someone we have, rather than it is merely one means of expressing or living out the connection you have with someone. We believe that we are connected because we send an E-mail to someone, text chat or video chat with someone or a group of persons. Isn't that connected? Again, at running the risk of drawing too wide of a distinction, it is connected, but it really is more linked. You are linked with someone through technology.
And yet, that means of linkage has taken the place of the air you and someone else breathe together when face-to-face. It is the emotionless membrane that does not allow, aside perhaps from video chatting, the nuances of looks and body language as a secondary means of communication. Yes, some of us are more sociable or less sociable than others, but interpersonal connection is hard-wired in all of us. When talking becomes "chatting" online far too regularly, when the idea of go out and play becomes go out to buy technology in order to play indoors, and when cursive writing is beginning to no longer be taught in schools because it is becoming "obsolete", we have redesigned and redefined what society it...what humanity is.
Connected is a state of being, the "are" of us. Linked is a means to keep in touch, a "how" of us. We must be careful, very careful, indeed, to not allow the "how" of us from becoming the "are" of us. We are well along that path now...
...and we may not notice until it is too late.
Terry
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Phrase of the Day: HE'S RIGHT
The bombings at the Boston Marathon three days ago were horrific. Over 180 persons injured, including over a dozen amputations performed, and three persons killed. The three persons killed were 29-year-old Krystle Campbell, 23-year-old Lu Lingzi, and 8-year-old Martin Richard.
I could say a lot of things about these bombings, most of it along the lines of This is terrible, When is this going to end?, and Haven't we seen enough? It all seems inadequate.
This picture below, however, does not seem inadequate. It is of Martin Richard, who was killed in the bombing (and whose six-year-old sister lost her leg and mother suffered a serious brain injury), holding a poster he made in school.
Terry
I could say a lot of things about these bombings, most of it along the lines of This is terrible, When is this going to end?, and Haven't we seen enough? It all seems inadequate.
This picture below, however, does not seem inadequate. It is of Martin Richard, who was killed in the bombing (and whose six-year-old sister lost her leg and mother suffered a serious brain injury), holding a poster he made in school.
It reads:
No more hurting people Peace
No more hurting people Peace
Terry
Monday, April 1, 2013
Word of the Day: OBITUARY
OBITUARY**
Three yards of black fabric enshroud my computer terminal. I am mourning the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense. His obituary reads as follows:
Common Sense, aka C.S., lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really knows how old he was, his birth records were long ago entangled in miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape.
Known affectionately to close friends as Horse Sense and Sound Thinking, he selflessly devoted himself to a life of service in homes, schools, hospitals and offices, helping folks get jobs done without a lot of fanfare, whooping and hollering. Rules and regulations and petty, frivolous lawsuits held no power over C.S.
A most reliable sage, he was credited with cultivating the ability to know when to come in out of the rain, the discovery that the early bird gets the worm and how to take the bitter with the sweet. C.S. also developed sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adult is in charge, not the kid) and prudent dietary plans (offset eggs and bacon with a little fiber and orange juice).
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Technological Revolution and the Smoking Crusades, C.S. survived sundry cultural and educational trends including disco, the men's movement, body piercing, whole language and new math.
C.S.'s health began declining in the late 1960s when he became infected with the If-It-Feels-Good, Do-It virus. In the following decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal and state rules and regulations and an oppressive tax code. C.S. was sapped of strength and the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, criminals received better treatment than victims and judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional baseball and golf. His deterioration accelerated as schools implemented zero-tolerance policies.
Reports of 6-year-old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing classmates, a teen suspended for taking a swig of Scope mouthwash after lunch, girls suspended for possessing Midol and an honor student expelled for having a table knife in her school lunch were more than his heart could endure. As the end neared, doctors say C.S. drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding regulations on low-flow toilets and mandatory air bags. Finally, upon hearing about a government plan to ban inhalers from 14 million asthmatics due to a trace of a pollutant that may be harmful to the environment, C.S. breathed his last. Services will be at Whispering Pines Cemetery. C.S. was preceded in death by his wife, Discretion; one daughter, Responsibility; and one son, Reason. He is survived by two step-brothers, Half-Wit and Dim-Wit.
Memorial Contributions may be sent to the Institute for Rational Thought.
Farewell, Common Sense. May you rest in peace.
** April fools: I didn't write this. All credit goes to Lori Borgman.
Terry
Three yards of black fabric enshroud my computer terminal. I am mourning the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense. His obituary reads as follows:
Common Sense, aka C.S., lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really knows how old he was, his birth records were long ago entangled in miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape.
Known affectionately to close friends as Horse Sense and Sound Thinking, he selflessly devoted himself to a life of service in homes, schools, hospitals and offices, helping folks get jobs done without a lot of fanfare, whooping and hollering. Rules and regulations and petty, frivolous lawsuits held no power over C.S.
A most reliable sage, he was credited with cultivating the ability to know when to come in out of the rain, the discovery that the early bird gets the worm and how to take the bitter with the sweet. C.S. also developed sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adult is in charge, not the kid) and prudent dietary plans (offset eggs and bacon with a little fiber and orange juice).
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Technological Revolution and the Smoking Crusades, C.S. survived sundry cultural and educational trends including disco, the men's movement, body piercing, whole language and new math.
C.S.'s health began declining in the late 1960s when he became infected with the If-It-Feels-Good, Do-It virus. In the following decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal and state rules and regulations and an oppressive tax code. C.S. was sapped of strength and the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, criminals received better treatment than victims and judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional baseball and golf. His deterioration accelerated as schools implemented zero-tolerance policies.
Reports of 6-year-old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing classmates, a teen suspended for taking a swig of Scope mouthwash after lunch, girls suspended for possessing Midol and an honor student expelled for having a table knife in her school lunch were more than his heart could endure. As the end neared, doctors say C.S. drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding regulations on low-flow toilets and mandatory air bags. Finally, upon hearing about a government plan to ban inhalers from 14 million asthmatics due to a trace of a pollutant that may be harmful to the environment, C.S. breathed his last. Services will be at Whispering Pines Cemetery. C.S. was preceded in death by his wife, Discretion; one daughter, Responsibility; and one son, Reason. He is survived by two step-brothers, Half-Wit and Dim-Wit.
Memorial Contributions may be sent to the Institute for Rational Thought.
Farewell, Common Sense. May you rest in peace.
** April fools: I didn't write this. All credit goes to Lori Borgman.
Terry
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Video of the Day: HUBRIS: THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR
Tonight marks the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq which began the Iraq War.
Here is an eye-opening and eyebrow-raising documentary about the lead-up to the Iraq War.
Here is an eye-opening and eyebrow-raising documentary about the lead-up to the Iraq War.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Word of the Day: REFORMER
On February 11 of this year, the Vatican confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI would step down from the papacy, ending his leadership of the Catholic Church worldwide. He would be the first Pope to step down since Pope Gregory XII, nearly six centuries ago. (Pope Gregory stepped down as a result of the Great Schism in the Catholic Church, more specifically the Western Schism, which resulted in two popes -- and, near the end of the schism, three popes -- in order that there would be one singular head of the Catholic Church.) Pope Gregory XII's stepping down was under outside pressure. If you want to get a little more specific, Pope Benedict XVI would be the first pope to step down without outside pressure since Pope Celestine V, whose papacy lasted just over five months in 1294.
On February 28, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI ended his nearly-eight year papacy, resulting in "sede vacante", or vacant seat. He is now referred to as Pope Emeritus. ("Emeritus" means "having served one's time".)
The Papal Conclave to elect the next pope convened with 115 cardinals this past Tuesday, March 12. It concluded the following evening, March 13, after only five ballots, with white smoke emanating from a smokestack -- black smoke means no pope elected yet -- and bells ringing. Just over an hour after the white smoke was seen, it was declared "Habemus Papam!", or "We have a Pope!" Stepping out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio would now and forever be known as Pope Francis.
His papacy has a number of firsts attached to it already. He is the first pope from outside Europe in almost thirteen centuries (Gregory III, 731-741 A.D.); the first to come from the Southern Hemisphere (Argentina); the first from the Americas (Latin America); the first to take the name of Francis (after St. Francis of Assisi); the first to take a name never taken before in 1,100 years; and the first Jesuit to be elected pope. His taking of the name of Francis seems to indicate a strong emphasis on humility and helping the poor, which he has done much of while in Argentina.
Signs of how he intends to live out his papacy could be found at his first appearance (when he asked for the crowd's blessing for him, and bowed to receive it, before he offered his blessing; wearing a simple white cassock) and on his first day (going to the hotel where he stayed before entering the conclave in order to pay his bill; opening the seal to the papal apartment and supposedly commenting, "There's room for 300 people here. I don't need all this space.").
One of the words being used early on to describe the hopes for his papacy is "reformer". At a time when the Catholic Church is in such turmoil, both internally and in public perception, it has been accepted that a reformer is badly needed. Indeed, a reformer is needed. As a former Catholic, thus an outsider looking in, I also agree a reformer is undeniably needed. Not that I personally or spiritually have anything invested in this, but I do hope Pope Francis will be the reformer that is so sorely needed at this time.
The question that begs asking, aside from "will he or won't he", is what kind of reform will he bring?
There are several definitions for the word "reform". Some of them are:
to put or change into an improved form or condition;
to put an end to something unacceptable by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action;
to induce or cause to abandon evil ways;
to become changed for the better.
The "improved form or condition" and "introducing a better method or course of action" would certainly be goals of Pope Francis' much more simplistic ways. It will be interesting to see how that carries over to the Catholic Church at large. (He was quoted as saying he wanted a "poor church for a poor people".) Regarding the inducing of or causing the abandoning of evil ways could be the way to address, hopefully seriously for once and all, the financial abuses and child abuse cases of the Catholic Church. It has not been, as is widely suggested, secular influences alone that have caused the downslide of the Catholic Church. The closing or merging of Catholic schools, the closing or merging of Catholic churches, and the large number of multi-million dollar settlements have been brought on internally, not externally.
The are many Bible verses and passages that speak of reaping what you sow. The time of sowing has been, and I believe still is, going on for a very, very long time. The time of reaping has been, and continues to be, at hand.
At one time, the ostentatious nature of the Catholic Church (i.e. the Vatican, many of its individual churches) seemed fitting. Anything that seemed as "common as the people" couldn't have a sense of high importance and, I would argue, the aesthetics of grandeur fed into that perception. Such grandeur (i.e. altars, chalices, clerical garb) was helpful, I believe, in getting those who were much simpler folk (i.e. country-dwellers and distant villagers) to be impressed with the church's importance. Yes, the Catholic Church did have a much deeper message than merely appearances, but appearances helped to make first impressions...and you know what they say about first impressions.
It isn't just the secular folk (non-churchgoers, non-believers, atheists, etc.) who have seen what has been going on and have been screaming for an end to the abuses, but Catholics, and other religious persons, have been crying out as well. How can the Catholic hierarchy say that only outsiders or troublemakers, of whatever kind, are the problem when those among your own numbers have abused or been abused? Your house is not crumbling from the outside in, but from the inside out.
In the gospel of Matthew, there is a parable of Jesus' called the parable of the wise and foolish builders. It reads, "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell--and great was its fall!" (Matt. 7:24-27, New Revised Standard Version)
So, Jesus' words included the abuse of power and the giving of a bad name to religion as good things? Worthwhile things? Desirable things? Perhaps there should be a parable about pretending your house is built on rock when it is actually built on sand.
Last summer, I wrote a similar article on this topic with emphasis on a case against a priest in Philadelphia. My interest, albeit as no longer a member of the Catholic Church, is a personal issue for me. I think any institution is prone to abuse. The key is not simply having guidelines in place to avoid it as best as possible; those are preventative measures. The key is what is done when it happens.
And so, at this time of crossroads within the Catholic Church, there are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide who will be watching, I'm sure with great anticipation and hope, as to what Pope Francis does. Will his simplistic and humble approach reform the church's approach in general? As I have always understood it, Jesus never operated in any other way than simplistically. A lot less ostentatiousness and a more down-to-earth and meet-the-people-on-their-level approach would not hurt, in my opinion.
And yet, I wonder what role do simplicity and humility have in the reformation that is needed regarding long-standing abuses? What key are they to that kind of reform? Pope Francis is only a few days into his papacy and, barring any unforeseen tragedy, time will tell as to what keys he holds and to what kind of a reformer he will be.
Terry
On February 28, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI ended his nearly-eight year papacy, resulting in "sede vacante", or vacant seat. He is now referred to as Pope Emeritus. ("Emeritus" means "having served one's time".)
The Papal Conclave to elect the next pope convened with 115 cardinals this past Tuesday, March 12. It concluded the following evening, March 13, after only five ballots, with white smoke emanating from a smokestack -- black smoke means no pope elected yet -- and bells ringing. Just over an hour after the white smoke was seen, it was declared "Habemus Papam!", or "We have a Pope!" Stepping out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio would now and forever be known as Pope Francis.
His papacy has a number of firsts attached to it already. He is the first pope from outside Europe in almost thirteen centuries (Gregory III, 731-741 A.D.); the first to come from the Southern Hemisphere (Argentina); the first from the Americas (Latin America); the first to take the name of Francis (after St. Francis of Assisi); the first to take a name never taken before in 1,100 years; and the first Jesuit to be elected pope. His taking of the name of Francis seems to indicate a strong emphasis on humility and helping the poor, which he has done much of while in Argentina.
Signs of how he intends to live out his papacy could be found at his first appearance (when he asked for the crowd's blessing for him, and bowed to receive it, before he offered his blessing; wearing a simple white cassock) and on his first day (going to the hotel where he stayed before entering the conclave in order to pay his bill; opening the seal to the papal apartment and supposedly commenting, "There's room for 300 people here. I don't need all this space.").
One of the words being used early on to describe the hopes for his papacy is "reformer". At a time when the Catholic Church is in such turmoil, both internally and in public perception, it has been accepted that a reformer is badly needed. Indeed, a reformer is needed. As a former Catholic, thus an outsider looking in, I also agree a reformer is undeniably needed. Not that I personally or spiritually have anything invested in this, but I do hope Pope Francis will be the reformer that is so sorely needed at this time.
The question that begs asking, aside from "will he or won't he", is what kind of reform will he bring?
There are several definitions for the word "reform". Some of them are:
to put or change into an improved form or condition;
to put an end to something unacceptable by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action;
to induce or cause to abandon evil ways;
to become changed for the better.
The "improved form or condition" and "introducing a better method or course of action" would certainly be goals of Pope Francis' much more simplistic ways. It will be interesting to see how that carries over to the Catholic Church at large. (He was quoted as saying he wanted a "poor church for a poor people".) Regarding the inducing of or causing the abandoning of evil ways could be the way to address, hopefully seriously for once and all, the financial abuses and child abuse cases of the Catholic Church. It has not been, as is widely suggested, secular influences alone that have caused the downslide of the Catholic Church. The closing or merging of Catholic schools, the closing or merging of Catholic churches, and the large number of multi-million dollar settlements have been brought on internally, not externally.
The are many Bible verses and passages that speak of reaping what you sow. The time of sowing has been, and I believe still is, going on for a very, very long time. The time of reaping has been, and continues to be, at hand.
At one time, the ostentatious nature of the Catholic Church (i.e. the Vatican, many of its individual churches) seemed fitting. Anything that seemed as "common as the people" couldn't have a sense of high importance and, I would argue, the aesthetics of grandeur fed into that perception. Such grandeur (i.e. altars, chalices, clerical garb) was helpful, I believe, in getting those who were much simpler folk (i.e. country-dwellers and distant villagers) to be impressed with the church's importance. Yes, the Catholic Church did have a much deeper message than merely appearances, but appearances helped to make first impressions...and you know what they say about first impressions.
It isn't just the secular folk (non-churchgoers, non-believers, atheists, etc.) who have seen what has been going on and have been screaming for an end to the abuses, but Catholics, and other religious persons, have been crying out as well. How can the Catholic hierarchy say that only outsiders or troublemakers, of whatever kind, are the problem when those among your own numbers have abused or been abused? Your house is not crumbling from the outside in, but from the inside out.
In the gospel of Matthew, there is a parable of Jesus' called the parable of the wise and foolish builders. It reads, "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell--and great was its fall!" (Matt. 7:24-27, New Revised Standard Version)
So, Jesus' words included the abuse of power and the giving of a bad name to religion as good things? Worthwhile things? Desirable things? Perhaps there should be a parable about pretending your house is built on rock when it is actually built on sand.
Last summer, I wrote a similar article on this topic with emphasis on a case against a priest in Philadelphia. My interest, albeit as no longer a member of the Catholic Church, is a personal issue for me. I think any institution is prone to abuse. The key is not simply having guidelines in place to avoid it as best as possible; those are preventative measures. The key is what is done when it happens.
And so, at this time of crossroads within the Catholic Church, there are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide who will be watching, I'm sure with great anticipation and hope, as to what Pope Francis does. Will his simplistic and humble approach reform the church's approach in general? As I have always understood it, Jesus never operated in any other way than simplistically. A lot less ostentatiousness and a more down-to-earth and meet-the-people-on-their-level approach would not hurt, in my opinion.
And yet, I wonder what role do simplicity and humility have in the reformation that is needed regarding long-standing abuses? What key are they to that kind of reform? Pope Francis is only a few days into his papacy and, barring any unforeseen tragedy, time will tell as to what keys he holds and to what kind of a reformer he will be.
Terry
Friday, March 1, 2013
Word of the Day: REVERSE
On July 2, 1964, then-President Lyndon Johnson signed The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addressed race, society, religion, minorities, and women with regard to discrimination. Just a little over thirteen months later, on August 6, 1965, President Johnson also signed into law The Voting Rights Act of 1965, reinforcing the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, by saying that no state is permitted to impose discriminatory voting qualifications. It disallows states from requiring anyone from doing anything that could deny qualified citizens their right to vote without the oversight of the U.S Justice Department. Such practices, at the time (under Jim Crow laws) directed primarily toward black persons (i.e. literacy tests, poll taxes, naming how many soap bubbles were in a bar of soap, naming how many jelly beans were in a jar) were considered legal requirements.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 were a one-two punch against discrimination in this country, in general and in regard to voting.
Part of the passing of the Voting Rights Act included revisiting it, voting on it again, and it would be passed, or not, for a duration so many years, and then revisited for another vote that number of years later. After its initial passage in 1965, these provisions were revisited after two five-year increments (1970, 1975), a seven-year period (1982) -- at which time, some of the provisions were made permanent -- and after a twenty-five year period (2007). However, it was in 2006, one year before the expiration date, that then-President George W. Bush signed the provisions into law once again. His signature renewed the act for another twenty-five year period (lasting until 2032).
One of the provisions, specifically Section 5, reentered the news on Wednesday of this week when the case of Shelby County [Alabama] v. [Attorney General Eric] Holder came before the Supreme Court. The case is an appeal of a 2011 ruling in a District of Columbia district court to uphold the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act related to the 2006 renewal as a possible unconstitutional overstepping of authority by the U.S. Congress. During the hearing, Justice Antonin Scalia made what I call a shocking statement about the Section 5 provision of the act -- the provision requiring the U.S Justice Department to approve any changes in voting procedure to ensure those changes are not discriminatory. The law covers, with exceptions for certain cities or districts, eight states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas); certain counties or cities in six states (California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia); and certain townships in two states (Michigan, New Hampshire). All of these areas were heavily allowing or enforcing voting discrimination to take place many decades ago.
Four years ago, just two years after President Bush signed the last extension of the law, Justice Scalia stated that, since it passed unanimously, its extension was a means to undermining the law itself. No, he did not see it as support for the law simply growing, which it has done in every continuance since 1970, to a unanimous vote in 2006. (I do not mean that as an eventuality that finally arrived, just that such has been the history.) He cited the Sanhedrin, a former Jewish high court system, having a rule regarding the death penalty whereby any unanimous votes on it rendered it invalid.
Justice Scalia didn't mind being unanimously approved by the Senate (98-0) in 1986 to sit on the Supreme Court, though.
Justice Scalia expanded on his comments from four years ago, by stating the following from the bench on Wednesday:
"This Court doesn’t like to get involved in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left to Congress.
The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation, in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear, was — in the Senate, there — double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.
Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.
I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.
That’s the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have. It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.
Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?"
Justice Scalia believes that the Voting Rights Act perpetuates racial entitlement? Really? Well, Justice Scalia, you have the first letter and the number of syllables correct: it is not entitlement; it is equality. As far as the idea of racial entitlement, it is not the Voting Rights Act, or its last reenactment, that perpetuates racial entitlement. White persons denying persons who are not white the right to vote is racial entitlement. ("We're entitled to vote, while you're not.")
If the Voting Rights Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, it makes the controls to put this train in reverse more accessible. Anyone who has followed the news is aware of attempts to disenfranchise voters -- mostly blacks, other minorities, and the poor -- that have been well under way for some time. Through voter ID cards, gerrymandering (redistricting voting districts), huge cutbacks on early voting, etc., keeping certain persons from voting seems clearly to not be an unfortunate side effect of these processes, but a desired goal. Wasn't that same goal of keeping others from voting the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter Rights Act of 1965 in the first place? Wasn't that same goal in our past? Wouldn't a reversal mean that every sore throat from screaming and every sore pair of feet from walking at public protests...every person directly affected by "separate but equal" environments...every person who was publicly humiliated...every person who was severely beaten, some with permanent injuries...every person who shed their blood...and every person who died for equal rights, went through all that for nothing? Yes, it would.
That cannot happen! That must not happen!
Justice Scalia, it is clear that you want the country to go backward and there is a likely racial component to that desire. I suspect that not every justice on the court shares your views, or shares them as vehemently as you do, but I fear that too many might. After seeing something happen that I never that would -- the Citizens United decision three years ago -- that lies firmly on the carpet of culpability resting at the foot of the same Supreme Court on which you sit (and which you voted in favor), that "too many" sharing your beliefs will equal "enough" to strike down the nearly-fifty-year-old law.
I admit to not trusting all the time two of the three branches of government, executive (President) and legislative (Congress), from time to time. The third branch, judicial (Supreme Court), seldom grasped my attention in the same way. However, that is no longer the case. The judicial branch has become just as untrustworthy as the executive and legislative branches have been.
Justice Scalia did get one thing right, although not in the way he intended it. When he said, "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes", he is correct. Our history shows that white persons were entitled to vote, while black persons were not, and it took us all the way up to 1965, the latter half of the twentieth century, to begin to change that.
Terry
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 were a one-two punch against discrimination in this country, in general and in regard to voting.
Part of the passing of the Voting Rights Act included revisiting it, voting on it again, and it would be passed, or not, for a duration so many years, and then revisited for another vote that number of years later. After its initial passage in 1965, these provisions were revisited after two five-year increments (1970, 1975), a seven-year period (1982) -- at which time, some of the provisions were made permanent -- and after a twenty-five year period (2007). However, it was in 2006, one year before the expiration date, that then-President George W. Bush signed the provisions into law once again. His signature renewed the act for another twenty-five year period (lasting until 2032).
One of the provisions, specifically Section 5, reentered the news on Wednesday of this week when the case of Shelby County [Alabama] v. [Attorney General Eric] Holder came before the Supreme Court. The case is an appeal of a 2011 ruling in a District of Columbia district court to uphold the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act related to the 2006 renewal as a possible unconstitutional overstepping of authority by the U.S. Congress. During the hearing, Justice Antonin Scalia made what I call a shocking statement about the Section 5 provision of the act -- the provision requiring the U.S Justice Department to approve any changes in voting procedure to ensure those changes are not discriminatory. The law covers, with exceptions for certain cities or districts, eight states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas); certain counties or cities in six states (California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia); and certain townships in two states (Michigan, New Hampshire). All of these areas were heavily allowing or enforcing voting discrimination to take place many decades ago.
Four years ago, just two years after President Bush signed the last extension of the law, Justice Scalia stated that, since it passed unanimously, its extension was a means to undermining the law itself. No, he did not see it as support for the law simply growing, which it has done in every continuance since 1970, to a unanimous vote in 2006. (I do not mean that as an eventuality that finally arrived, just that such has been the history.) He cited the Sanhedrin, a former Jewish high court system, having a rule regarding the death penalty whereby any unanimous votes on it rendered it invalid.
Justice Scalia didn't mind being unanimously approved by the Senate (98-0) in 1986 to sit on the Supreme Court, though.
Justice Scalia expanded on his comments from four years ago, by stating the following from the bench on Wednesday:
"This Court doesn’t like to get involved in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left to Congress.
The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation, in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear, was — in the Senate, there — double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.
Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.
I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.
That’s the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have. It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.
Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?"
Justice Scalia believes that the Voting Rights Act perpetuates racial entitlement? Really? Well, Justice Scalia, you have the first letter and the number of syllables correct: it is not entitlement; it is equality. As far as the idea of racial entitlement, it is not the Voting Rights Act, or its last reenactment, that perpetuates racial entitlement. White persons denying persons who are not white the right to vote is racial entitlement. ("We're entitled to vote, while you're not.")
If the Voting Rights Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, it makes the controls to put this train in reverse more accessible. Anyone who has followed the news is aware of attempts to disenfranchise voters -- mostly blacks, other minorities, and the poor -- that have been well under way for some time. Through voter ID cards, gerrymandering (redistricting voting districts), huge cutbacks on early voting, etc., keeping certain persons from voting seems clearly to not be an unfortunate side effect of these processes, but a desired goal. Wasn't that same goal of keeping others from voting the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter Rights Act of 1965 in the first place? Wasn't that same goal in our past? Wouldn't a reversal mean that every sore throat from screaming and every sore pair of feet from walking at public protests...every person directly affected by "separate but equal" environments...every person who was publicly humiliated...every person who was severely beaten, some with permanent injuries...every person who shed their blood...and every person who died for equal rights, went through all that for nothing? Yes, it would.
That cannot happen! That must not happen!
Justice Scalia, it is clear that you want the country to go backward and there is a likely racial component to that desire. I suspect that not every justice on the court shares your views, or shares them as vehemently as you do, but I fear that too many might. After seeing something happen that I never that would -- the Citizens United decision three years ago -- that lies firmly on the carpet of culpability resting at the foot of the same Supreme Court on which you sit (and which you voted in favor), that "too many" sharing your beliefs will equal "enough" to strike down the nearly-fifty-year-old law.
I admit to not trusting all the time two of the three branches of government, executive (President) and legislative (Congress), from time to time. The third branch, judicial (Supreme Court), seldom grasped my attention in the same way. However, that is no longer the case. The judicial branch has become just as untrustworthy as the executive and legislative branches have been.
Justice Scalia did get one thing right, although not in the way he intended it. When he said, "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes", he is correct. Our history shows that white persons were entitled to vote, while black persons were not, and it took us all the way up to 1965, the latter half of the twentieth century, to begin to change that.
Terry
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Word of the Day: EUTHANASIA
No doubt the title of this blog entry got your attention. "Euthanasia" is a loaded word, emotionally packed on both sides of the issue. Here in America, that word still invokes memories of news stories involving Dr. Jack Kevorkian (aka "Dr. Death") and his administering of assisted suicides to patients deemed terminally ill and who wanted their suffering to end during the 1990's. The idea of death with dignity, including Death with Dignity laws having been passed in Washington state and Oregon, was, and remains, the impetus for assisted suicides.
In this entry, however, I want to focus on a story out of Belgium that took place two months ago, but just recently came to my attention. It's the story of twin brothers, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, who were euthanized late last year. The 45-year-old twins were already deaf when they learned they were also beginning to go blind. It was their deafness and pending blindness that were their reasons for petitioning to be euthanized.
You read that correctly: their deafness and blindness -- pending blindness, that is -- was the basis for their argument in favor of euthanasia for both of them. Apparently the twins were so close, growing up together and living together in their adult life, that felt they had no other option since they were so emotionally distraught about their deteriorating situation. As Belgium is one of just three countries that allow for euthanasia on non-terminal cases -- Switzerland and the Netherlands are the other two -- the twin brothers looked for a hospital that would honor their request. Initially turned down, their request was finally accepted, following a two-year search. Once they received confirmation, family noted that they were relieved their suffering would end soon.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem were euthanized on December 14, 2012.
The usual understanding of euthanasia is the peaceful ending of someone's life who is suffering from a terminal illness or whose quality of life is irreversibly affected in a negative manner. It is also known as mercy killing. In the case of the Verbessem brothers, I'm wondering about the illness that reports say they had. I haven't seen what the illness was, so I am assuming it had something to do with their loss of hearing, their loss of sight, or both. I'm also wondering about their quality of life. They would have to become dependent due to the loss of those two senses, something they did not want.
What appears from the reporting on this story as the real tipping point for the brothers was the knowledge that they would not only be unable to hear each other, but would also be unable to see each other. That thought was their ultimate unbearable weight. That thought was the catalyst for their decision to end their lives.
I neither presume to know the depth of emotional distress the brothers experienced, nor do I feel it is appropriate for me to condemn their decision. It is also important to remember here the special bond that twins have for each other and how that must have played a part in this. All I can offer here is simply my agreement or disagreement with their decision, while acknowledging my lack of access to inside their brains.
I do believe the loss of any of our five senses (sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing) is never an easy thing with which to deal, let alone live with it. To lose more than one sense is hardly easily dismissed, so I know they did not have an easy burden. Nonetheless, I would offer my disagreement with their decision. My disagreement is not, and cannot be, based in knowing better than they do.
My disagreement is with their basis for requesting euthanasia. While I am certain that they were extremely distraught, I feel ill at ease with their being unable to bear not being able to see each other as a reason for ending their lives. I can understand about their having to become dependent, as I care for my legally blind mother who is dependent on me, but at forty-five years of age, they could have been able to learn to have some sort of a functional life.
I also disagree with Belgium, as well as Switzerland and the Netherlands, making euthanasia available to non-terminal cases. It would seem to require that any non-terminal individuals requesting for euthanasia should be put under an even stricter scrutiny, although I believe that if it is legal and offered, then it really should be reserved for solely terminal cases.
I am not arguing pro or con regarding euthanasia, but I feel that something which is no small consideration -- clearly a life-changing decision -- was not applicable to their situation. My fear is that anyone who is extremely distraught for whatever their situation is, or issues are, will see this as an open door to change the nature of euthanasia. It is called mercy killing because it is intended to show a suffering individual mercy at the end of their life.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem's decision is their decision; no one can take that away from them. My concern is that this will change the nature of euthanasia, where mercy killing is transformed into convenience killing.
Terry
In this entry, however, I want to focus on a story out of Belgium that took place two months ago, but just recently came to my attention. It's the story of twin brothers, Marc and Eddy Verbessem, who were euthanized late last year. The 45-year-old twins were already deaf when they learned they were also beginning to go blind. It was their deafness and pending blindness that were their reasons for petitioning to be euthanized.
You read that correctly: their deafness and blindness -- pending blindness, that is -- was the basis for their argument in favor of euthanasia for both of them. Apparently the twins were so close, growing up together and living together in their adult life, that felt they had no other option since they were so emotionally distraught about their deteriorating situation. As Belgium is one of just three countries that allow for euthanasia on non-terminal cases -- Switzerland and the Netherlands are the other two -- the twin brothers looked for a hospital that would honor their request. Initially turned down, their request was finally accepted, following a two-year search. Once they received confirmation, family noted that they were relieved their suffering would end soon.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem were euthanized on December 14, 2012.
The usual understanding of euthanasia is the peaceful ending of someone's life who is suffering from a terminal illness or whose quality of life is irreversibly affected in a negative manner. It is also known as mercy killing. In the case of the Verbessem brothers, I'm wondering about the illness that reports say they had. I haven't seen what the illness was, so I am assuming it had something to do with their loss of hearing, their loss of sight, or both. I'm also wondering about their quality of life. They would have to become dependent due to the loss of those two senses, something they did not want.
What appears from the reporting on this story as the real tipping point for the brothers was the knowledge that they would not only be unable to hear each other, but would also be unable to see each other. That thought was their ultimate unbearable weight. That thought was the catalyst for their decision to end their lives.
I neither presume to know the depth of emotional distress the brothers experienced, nor do I feel it is appropriate for me to condemn their decision. It is also important to remember here the special bond that twins have for each other and how that must have played a part in this. All I can offer here is simply my agreement or disagreement with their decision, while acknowledging my lack of access to inside their brains.
I do believe the loss of any of our five senses (sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing) is never an easy thing with which to deal, let alone live with it. To lose more than one sense is hardly easily dismissed, so I know they did not have an easy burden. Nonetheless, I would offer my disagreement with their decision. My disagreement is not, and cannot be, based in knowing better than they do.
My disagreement is with their basis for requesting euthanasia. While I am certain that they were extremely distraught, I feel ill at ease with their being unable to bear not being able to see each other as a reason for ending their lives. I can understand about their having to become dependent, as I care for my legally blind mother who is dependent on me, but at forty-five years of age, they could have been able to learn to have some sort of a functional life.
I also disagree with Belgium, as well as Switzerland and the Netherlands, making euthanasia available to non-terminal cases. It would seem to require that any non-terminal individuals requesting for euthanasia should be put under an even stricter scrutiny, although I believe that if it is legal and offered, then it really should be reserved for solely terminal cases.
I am not arguing pro or con regarding euthanasia, but I feel that something which is no small consideration -- clearly a life-changing decision -- was not applicable to their situation. My fear is that anyone who is extremely distraught for whatever their situation is, or issues are, will see this as an open door to change the nature of euthanasia. It is called mercy killing because it is intended to show a suffering individual mercy at the end of their life.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem's decision is their decision; no one can take that away from them. My concern is that this will change the nature of euthanasia, where mercy killing is transformed into convenience killing.
Terry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)